ArticleBMJ open2025
Protocol for a modified Delphi study of ethical oversight of data science health research (DSHR).
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe use of data science for health research produces complex ethical, legal and social challenges that traditional ethical oversight mechanisms struggle to address. In Nigeria, the current ethical guidelines were not designed for these challenges which include pervasive data environments, consent for secondary data use, algorithmic decision-making and bias, privacy risks, involvement of commercial entities, data colonisation, inequitable benefit-sharing and commercial data holdings. To address these gaps, we developed a draft guideline incorporating principles like trust, veracity, global justice and alternative ethical approval mechanisms. Here, we describe the protocol for a study aimed at validating the guideline through stakeholder consensus on the content, feasibility and acceptability of this subcode for national implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We describe the use of a modified e-Delphi approach to iteratively synthesize expert opinions about ethical oversight for data science health research (DSHR) led by a multidisciplinary working group from the Bridging Gaps in the ELSI of Data Science Health Research in Nigeria (BridgELSI) team. We will invite 65 experts, including health researchers, ethics committee members, data scientists, health policymakers, funders and key opinion leaders in Nigeria to participate. Participants will rate 13 core principles, including global justice, algorithmic bias, data governance and related governance provisions on importance, desirability for inclusion in national guidelines, feasibility and confidence in implementation, using 5-point Likert scales, with optional free-text comments. We will summarise responses using descriptive statistics, assess consensus and polarity using pre-specified thresholds for the mean and IQR, and iteratively refine statements between rounds using qualitative content analysis of comments. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Nigerian National Health Research Ethics Committee and the University of Maryland IRB, and participants will provide informed consent. Results will be shared with the expert panel and national regulators and disseminated via publications and conferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.